Parts of Categorical Syllogism

Parts of Categorical Syllogism

• a categorical syllogism is a deductive argument
consisting of three categorical statements that
together contain exactly three terms, each of which
occurs in exactly two of the constituent statements.
There are three kinds of terms in a categorical
syllogism:
• Minor term (S) - the subject of the conclusion (also
called the subject term)
• Major term (P)- the predicate of the conclusion (also
called the predicate term)
• Middle term (M) - the term found in both premises
and serves to mediate between the minor and the
major terms
There are three kinds of statements in a
categorical syllogism:
•Minor premise - the premise which contains the
minor term
•Major premise - the premise which contains the
major term
•Conclusion support the statement the premises
 Examples
M P
• All torts are civil wrongs. (major premise)
S M
• Negligence is a tort. (minor premise)
S P
• Therefore, negligence is a civil wrong. (conclusion)
 P M
• All contracts with vague terms are void. (major premise)
S M
• This contract is not void. (minor premise)
S P
• Therefore, this contract does not contain vague terms. (conclusion)
Rules for the validity of Categorical Syllogism
• Rule 1: The syllogism must not contain two negative premises.

Example
No socialist country is capitalist.
The Philippines is not socialist.
Therefore, it is a capitalist country.
 No military action whose harmful effects cannot be controlled is
morally permissible.
All military uses of biological weapons are military actions whose
harmful effects cannot be controlled.
Therefore, no military uses of biological weapons are morally
permissible.

Civil offenses are not criminal offenses.

Slander is not a criminal offense.
Therefore, slander is a civil offense.
 Are the three syllogisms valid?
• The only valid syllogism is the second. The other two violate
the first rule and, thus, are invalid. It can be observed that
both of the premises in each syllogism are negative
statements. The rationale behind this rule is that when the
premises are both negative, the middle term fails to serve its
function of mediating between the major and minor terms.
The violation of this rule is called the fallacy of exclusive
premises.
• Thus, we can say that even if, in the first syllogism, both of
the premises are true it does not follow that the Philippines
is a capitalist country. It may have a mixed economy. In the
same way, the line of reasoning in the third item is wrong
because even if it is true that Civil offenses are not criminal
offenses, and let us say Alms- giving is not a criminal offense,
we cannot conclude that Alms-giving is a civil offense.
Rule 2: There must be three pairs of univocal
terms
• The terms in the syllogism must have exactly the same
meaning and must be used in exactly the same way in
each occurrence. A term that has different meanings
in its occurrences is an equivocal term. A univocal
term has the same meaning in different occurrences.
In our two examples of valid syllogisms, each pair of
terms has the same meaning.
 Example
What is natural is good.
To make a mistake is natural.
Therefore, to make a mistake is good.

The Congress can create or abolish laws.

The law of supply and demand is a law.
Therefore, the Congress can abolish the law of supply and demand.

Selling cigarettes to a person below 18 years of age is unlawful.

That store sold cigarettes to a student below 18 years of age.
Therefore, the store has violated the law.
• Which syllogisms above are invalid? The first and the second.
In the first argument, the term "natural" is used with two
different meanings: as something pure (not artificial) and as
something normal or usual. In the second example, the term
"law" has two different usages in the first and second
premises. In the third syllogism, each of the terms has been
used in the same sense. What is meant by "below 18 years of
age" in the first premise is the same as in the second
premise.
• The violation of the second rule is called the fallacy of
equivocation. Equivocation usually occurs in the
middle term.
 Rule 3: The middle term must be universal at
least once.
Most mayors have political parties.
Mr. Herras is a mayor.
Therefore, Mr. Herras has a political party.

Libel is a form of defamation.

Reyes' untrue accusation is a form of defamation.
Therefore, Reyes' untrue accusation is a libel.

No military actions that intentionally kill innocent civilians are just.

Some Malaysian military actions in Sabah intentionally killed innocent civilians.
Therefore, some Malaysian military actions were not just.
 Which syllogisms here are invalid?
• The first two examples above since they both violate Rule 3.
Notice that their middle terms are particular in both
premises. The middle term in the first item is "mayor" and in
the second it is "form of defamation." The reason for this
rule is that when the middle term is particular in both
premises it might stand for a different portion of its
extension in each occurrence and, thus, be equivalent to two
terms, and, therefore, fail to fulfill its function of uniting or
separating the minor and major terms., Such violation is
called the fallacy of particular middle.
• Notice that in the third syllogism which is a valid
syllogism, the middle term ("military actions the
intentionally kill civilians") is universal in the first
premise, although particular in the second premise. To
determine if the middle term is universal or particular,
refer to the discussion on the quantity of the
statement and predicate.
• However, there is an exception to this rule. Even if the middle term is
particular in both premises, but it is quantified by "most" in both
premises and the conclusion is quantified by "some," the syllogism
does not violate this third rule. This is so since the combined
extension of the middle term is more than a universal.

For example:
Most mayors have political parties.
Most mayors are corrupt.
Therefore, some people who have political parties are corrupt.
 Rule 4: If the term in the conclusion is universal,
the same term in the premise must also be
universal.
Examine the following arguments:
All lawyers read the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
All lawyers are literate.
Therefore, all who read the Philippine Daily Inquirer are literate.

All acts that inflict more harm than good are unjust.
All terrorist acts inflict more harm than good.
Therefore, all terrorist acts are unjust.
Felonies are criminal offenses.
Misdemeanors are not felonies.
Therefore, misdemeanors are not criminal offenses.

Only the second argument above is valid.

In the first syllogism, the minor term "those who read the Philippine
Daily Inquirer" is universal in the conclusion but particular in the
premise.
Such violation is called the fallacy of illicit minor.
In the third example, the major term "criminal offenses" is universal in
the conclusion but particular in the premise. Such a violation is called
the fallacy of illicit major.
The rationale behind this rule is that in a deductive argument the
conclusion should not go beyond what the premises state.
Thus, the conclusion must not be wider in extension than the premises.
Again, to determine if the major term or minor term is universal (or
particular), refer to the discussion on the quantity of the statement and
predicate.
Rule 4: If the term in the conclusion is universal,
the same term in the premise must also be
universal.
• Universal term: This means a term that refers to all
members of a group or category.
• Conclusion: The final statement you're making.
• Premise: The information you start with, your initial
statements.
•
If you make a statement that says "all" or "none" in your conclusion,
then somewhere in your initial information (premise), you also have to
talk about "all" or "none.“

Let's say you want to talk about dogs:

If you conclude, "All dogs can bark," then somewhere in your starting
information (premise), you should have a statement like "All animals in
the category of dogs have the ability to bark."
If you conclude, "No dogs can fly," then somewhere in your starting
information (premise), you should have a statement like "No animals in
the category of dogs can fly.“

This rule helps to ensure that your statements are consistent and
logically sound. If you're talking about all or none in your final
statement, you should be consistent in your initial statements.
Statement 1 (Premise):
All mammals can give birth to live young.
Statement 2 (Premise):
Elephants are mammals.
Conclusion:
Therefore, elephants can give birth to live young.
In this example, the term "mammals" is used universally in the
conclusion ("All mammals"), and we also have a universal statement
about mammals in the premises ("All mammals can give birth to live
young"). This adheres to Rule 4, which states that if the term in the
conclusion is universal, the same term in the premise must also be
universal.
The conclusion logically follows from the premises because it maintains
consistency in the use of the term "mammals" in a universal sense.
•Fallacy of Illicit Minor:
All cats like fish
Fluffy is a cat
Fluffy must love fish

Its Illicit minor if the conclusion makes a stronger

claim about Fluffy that what the premises
support
• Fallacy of Illicit Major:
Some students study hard
No one who studies hard fails.
So some students cannot fail

Its illicit major if the conclusion claim about students

(the major term) than what the premises support
• Rationale (Reasoning Behind the Rule):
• Simple Explanation: When you're making an argument, what you
conclude should not be more than what you started with. It's like
saying, "If I only know a little bit, I shouldn't act like I know
everything."
• Example: If you only have evidence about a few cats being friendly,
you shouldn't say all cats are friendly. It's about not making your
conclusion too big compared to what you know.
• How to Check if a Term is Universal or Particular:
• Simple Explanation: When you're making statements, pay attention
to words like "all" or "some." If you're talking about everyone or
everything, it's universal. If you're talking about just some of them,
it's particular.
• Example: If you say, "All dogs bark," that's a universal statement
about every dog. But if you say, "Some birds can fly," that's a
particular statement because it's not about every bird.
 Hypothetical Syllogism
• A syllogism that contains a hypothetical statement as
one of its premises.

3 kinds of hypothetical syllogism

• Conditional Syllogism
• Disjunctive syllogism
• Conjunctive syllogism
• Hypothetical Syllogism:
• Imagine you're trying to figure out something, and you use a "what if"
statement to help you.
1.Simple Explanation: It's like saying, "If one thing happens, then
another thing will happen."
2.Example:
1. If it's raining (first thing), then the ground is wet (second thing).
2. So, you can conclude: If it's raining, the ground is wet.
• So, a hypothetical syllogism is just a way of using a "what if"
statement to make a logical conclusion. If this condition is true, then
that outcome follows. It's a way of connecting two statements based
on a hypothetical situation.
 Conditional Syllogism
• The major premise is a conditional statement.
• A conditional statement is a compound statement which asserts that
one member (the then clause) is true on condition that the other
members (the if clause) is true.

Example:
If it rains, the ground is wet.
The if clause or its equivalent is called antecedent, while the then
clause or its equivalent is called the consequent.
• What is important in the conditional statement is the
sequence between the antecedent and the
consequent, that is, the truth of the consequent
follows upon the fulfillment of the condition stated in
the antecedent. It does not matter whether
individually the antecedent or consequent is true or
false; what matters is the relationship between them.
• The statement If the Philippines is in Asia, then
Melchora Aquino is a Filipina does not make sense
although each clause, taken singly, is true.
• The Philippines is indeed in Asia and Melchora Aquino
is a Filipina. But the fact that Melchora Aquino is a
Filipina is not a consequent of the Philippines being in
Asia. On the other hand, the statement If Melchora
Aquino is not an Asian, then she is not a Filipino is a
true statement although the clauses, taken singly, are
false. The statement is true because being an Asian is
essential to being a Filipino.
1.The Confusing Statement:
1. If the Philippines is in Asia, then Melchora Aquino is a Filipina.
2. Simple Explanation: Just because the Philippines is in Asia doesn't automatically mean
Melchora Aquino is a Filipina.
3. Example: It's like saying, "If your school is big, then your friend likes pizza." Those two
things might be true, but they don't really have anything to do with each other.
2.The Makes-Sense Statement:
1. If Melchora Aquino is not an Asian, then she is not a Filipino.
2. Simple Explanation: If Melchora Aquino is not from Asia, then she is not Filipino.
3. Example: It's like saying, "If you're not from the beach, then you're not a surfer." In this
case, being from the beach is essential to being a surfer.
• So, in the first statement, the connection between the Philippines being in Asia
and Melchora Aquino being a Filipina doesn't really make sense. But in the
second statement, it does make sense because being Asian is crucial for being
Filipino.
Conditional statements can be expressed not only in if-then clauses but
also in a wide variety of different sentences.
For example:
Being a teenager these days means that you have to face a tremendous
amount of peer pressure.
The fact that she is a native of Bohol implies that she knows where the
chocolate hills are.
Anyone who cheers for Ginebra must be a Mark Caguioa fan.
Unless you are born again by water and spirit, you will not enter the
Kingdom of Heaven.
Whenever heavy rains pour in Sampaloc, Espana Avenue is flooded.
In case one of the grantees changes his/her mind, you will get the
scholarship.
If we write these statements in the if-then forms,
we can see that their meaning remains the same.
• If you are a teenager these days, then you must face a tremendous
amount of peer pressure.
• If she is a native of Bohol, then she knows where the chocolate hills
are.
• If he cheers for Ginebra, then he must be a Mark Caguioa fan.
• If you are not born again by water and spirit, then you cannot enter
the Kingdom of Heaven.
• If heavy rains pour in Sampaloc, then Espana Ave. is flooded.
• If one of the grantees changes his/her mind, then you will get the
scholarship.
The conditional syllogism can be symbolized
by the following:
•A – for the antecedent
•C – for the consequent
•~ - for the negation of the statement
•> - for “implies”
•“ – “ for therefore
 Rules for Conditional Syllogisms
• There are two valid forms of conditional syllogisms. When
the minor premise affirms the antecedent, the conclusion
must affirm the consequent. This form is called modus
ponens.

If it rains, then the ground will be wet. A>C

It rained. A
Therefore, the ground is wet. C
• When the minor premise denies the consequent, the
conclusion must deny the antecedent. This form is
called modus tollens.

If it rains, then the ground will be wet. A>C

The ground is not wet. ~C
Therefore, it did not rain. ~A
• A conditional syllogism is invalid if the minor premise
denies the antecedent. This invalid form is called the
fallacy of denying the antecedent.

If it rains, then the ground will be wet. A>C

It did not rain. ~A
Therefore, the ground is not wet. ~C
• The minor premise affirms the consequent. This
invalid form is called the fallacy of affirming the
consequent.

If it rains, then the ground will be wet. A>C

The ground is wet. C
Therefore, it rained. A
Examine the following conditional syllogisms.
Which of these are valid, which are invalid?
• If he fired the gun, then he should have gunpowder residue on his
clothing or skin.
• According to the medico-legal examination, there was no trace of
gunpowder residue on any part of his body and clothing.
• Therefore, he did not fire the gun.

• If you are eligible to vote, then you must be 18 years and above,
• My cousin is above 18 years of age.
• Therefore, my cousin is eligible to vote.
• If the defendant has no knowledge that his statement
is untrue, he cannot be guilty of fraud.
• The defendant knows that his statement is untrue.
• Therefore, he is guilty of fraud.

• If he was in the United States when the crime

happened, then he cannot commit the crime.
• It was proven that he was in the United States at that
time.
• Therefore, he cannot have committed the crime.
• The first and the fourth syllogisms here are valid. The first follows
the modus tollens form, and the fourth follows the modus
ponens form.
• However, the second and third syllogisms are invalid. In the
second syllogism, where the fallacy of affirming the consequent
is committed, even if both premises are true, we cannot be
certain that the conclusion is also true since there are other
prerequisites to be eligible to vote such as citizenship and having
registered as a voter. Your cousin may have met the age
requirement but he may have failed to register with the
COMELEC. The third is also invalid having committed the fallacy
of denying the antecedent. The defendant may know that the
statement is untrue but the supposed victim did not actually rely
on the statement that was made (which is another essential
criterion to prove there was a fraud).
 Enthymemes
• We do not often find these syllogistic forms of arguing in
legal writing.
• Legal opinions and memorandum are not written in such
formal structure consisting of 2 premises and a conclusion.
However, most legal arguments actually follow the syllogistic
reasoning; we only have to analyze deeper the arguments to
excavate syllogism.
• Imagine you're trying to convince someone of
something, and instead of stating all the reasons, you
give them just part of the argument, expecting them
to understand the rest. That's essentially what an
enthymeme is in logic.
• In simpler terms, an enthymeme is an argument with
a missing piece that you leave out because you
assume the listener can fill in the gap. It relies on
common sense or shared knowledge to make the
point.
Example:

1.Complete Argument:
1. Full: "It's raining, so we should take umbrellas because we might get wet."
2. Enthymeme: "It's raining, so we should take umbrellas."
The missing piece is the idea that if it's raining, you might get wet without an
umbrella.
2. Complete Argument:
1. Full: "He ate three big meals today, so he's probably not hungry right now."
2. Enthymeme: "He ate three big meals today, so he's probably not hungry."
The unstated part is that if you've eaten a lot, you're likely not hungry.
3. Complete Argument:
1. Full: "She always studies hard, so she'll likely do well on the exam."
2. Enthymeme: "She always studies hard, so she'll likely do well."
The implied part is that studying hard usually leads to good performance.
Full Argument:
• Full: "There's a pattern of increased burglaries in the
neighborhood during the summer months. This could
be because more people are away on vacation,
making it easier for burglars to target homes.“
• Enthymeme:
Enthymeme: "There's a pattern of increased burglaries
in the neighborhood during the summer months."
In Ordinary legal discourse, arguments and inferences are expressed
enthymematically. The reason is easy to understand. A large body of
legal statements can be presumed to be a common knowledge, and
legal practitioners save themselves trouble by not repeating well-
known and perhaps trivially true propositions that their listeners and
readers can perfectly well be expected to supply themselves. Moreover
it is not all unusual for a legal arguments to be rhetorically more
powerful and persuasive when stated enthemematically than when
enunciated in complete detail. As Aristotle wrote in his Rhetoric,
“Speeches that … rely on enthymemes excite the louder applause.”
Enthymeme Example:
• Premise 1: Burglary is a crime that involves breaking into someone's
home with the intent to steal.
• Premise 2: If someone breaks into a home with the intent to steal,
they are likely to encounter the homeowner.
• Conclusion : ????
 Polysyllogism
• In criminology logic, polysyllogism refers to a series of interconnected
arguments or statements that work together to support a conclusion
about a criminal act or situation.
• Legal writers also have the tendency to pile one syllogism on top of
the another.
• It is a series of syllogism in which the conclusion of one syllogism
supplies a premise of the next syllogism.
• Typically used because one or more logical step is needed to reach
the desire conclusion.
• Imagine you're trying to understand why something happened or who did
something, like solving a mystery. Polysyllogism is a way of explaining it by
breaking it down into smaller steps.
Here are three examples:
1.The Park Incident:
1. Step 1: People heard a loud noise in the park.
2. Step 2: A witness saw someone running away from the noise.
3. Conclusion: The person running away might be connected to the loud noise.
2.The Classroom Mystery:
1. Step 1: The teacher noticed the door was open during lunch.
2. Step 2: A student was seen near the classroom at that time.
3. Conclusion: The student might have something to do with the open door.
3.The Pet Dilemma:
1. Step 1: The back door was left ajar.
2. Step 2: There are muddy footprints leading to the pet's area.
3. Conclusion: Someone might have left the door open, and those muddy footprints
could be linked to the person.
Example 1: The Stolen Bike:
1.Syllogism 1: Tom's bike is missing from the garage.
2.Syllogism 2: There are tire tracks leading from the garage to the
neighbor's house.
3.Conclusion: It seems likely that someone took Tom's bike and rode it
to the neighbor's house based on the tire tracks.
Example 2: The Broken Window:
1.Syllogism 1: The window in the jewelry store is broken.
2.Syllogism 2: Security footage shows a person wearing a ski mask near
the store during the night.
3.Conclusion: It's plausible that the person in the ski mask broke the
window and may have been involved in a burglary.